• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.
The singular challenge with gun control is the requirement to balance the rights of responsible owners against the need to control irresponsible and criminal activity. In the main, gun control advocates see all guns as bad and aim for a total ban.
 
PrairieThunder said:
I quite like our gun laws as they are. Loosening or tightening the belt will not change the pattern of gun crimes in Canada. Criminals who use guns use stolen or smuggled handguns which can't be restricted regardless.

What we need is amendment of Self Defence laws in Canada because, as they stand, tend to punish the defender more than the attacker. With the recent ruling in Ontario with the guy getting his house firebombed... I think we're slowly moving in the right direction, someone just needs to get on it a little faster (but I understand there are bigger problems to solve such as the economy).

Look at the United Kingdom. They have way more restrictive firearm laws and they have way more violent gun crimes than we do.
Don't quote me on Australia though, but last I heard, with firearm purchases and possession being next to impossible in Australia (like the UK, possibly more restrictive) they too have higher violent gun crime rates.

The common trend? Majority hand guns and are either stolen or smuggled.

More restrictions will not do any good, but neither will more freedom. More freedom will open the doors up to giving more people with Mental Illness or ill-character access to firearms and therefore an increase in gun deaths and injuries either by intent, or negligence. Canada's laws are not perfect, but they're good for us and have proven their effectiveness in the long term (especially with the screening they do these days, while some slip through, they do manage to do well).

Our laws are too restrictive. Period.

You should also research what is going on in Australia before commenting on it. They have a very low ratio, of firearm homicide, per 100,000. They also have lots of guns.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/australians-restock-the-gun-racks-20130113-2cnmu.html

Our existing laws have never been proven to have saved a single life. Gun related death and injury were, both, well on their way down and continue to do so, before the last round of Allen Rock's liberals enacted laws came into effect.

No law is going to stop the bad guy from getting a gun and shooting someone. Imposing laws on legal, law abiding citizens, in the hopes of stopping that bad guy is a total farce.
 
recceguy said:
Our laws are too restrictive. Period.

You should also research what is going on in Australia before commenting on it. They have a very low ratio, of firearm homicide, per 100,000. They also have lots of guns.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/australians-restock-the-gun-racks-20130113-2cnmu.html

Our existing laws have never been proven to have saved a single life. Gun related death and injury were, both, well on their way down and continue to do so, before the last round of Allen Rock's liberals enacted laws came into effect.

No law is going to stop the bad guy from getting a gun and shooting someone. Imposing laws on legal, law abiding citizens, in the hopes of stopping that bad guy is a total farce.

I stand corrected.
 
Nemo888 said:
Open carry is very unlikely in Canada. Most crimes involve hand guns. They are a hard core criminals weapons of choice. By comparison few crimes are committed with rifles. 

Firearm laws are likely to become more restrictive. My choice for limited resources would be to give up on hand guns and concentrate on keeping rifles unrestricted.

That is completely defeatist.

Once they have your handguns they'll be coming for your rifles and shotguns. They've already started if you haven't noticed.
 
It's an American site, and the explanation is geared toward American problems.

However, the explanation is no less valid here than it is in the US and every law abiding gun owner here should take note and commit the main points to memory.

The point to be taken away is the inherent, universal and god given right to self defence, by any means possible.

Shared under Fair Dealings.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/the_argument_that_wins_the_assault_weapon_debate.html

General Carl von Clausewitz defined the center of gravity as the objective whose achievement results in the enemy's total defeat. We must therefore identify this single objective or, in a political controversy, a single issue, and concentrate our resources accordingly. In the case of the "assault weapon" debate, this is the basic and natural human right of self-defense. If we present the argument correctly, the other side has absolutely no defense whatsoever.

The Target Audience: Swing Voters and the Opposing Rank and File

Colonel Paul Linebarger's Psychological Warfare states clearly that any communication whose purpose is to influence attitudes, beliefs, and actions is propaganda by definition. Encouragements to get flu shots or adopt shelter pets are examples of honest and beneficial propaganda. The same goes for injunctions against smoking, driving while drunk, or texting while driving. Nazi cartoons of Jews with exaggerated Semitic features, the White Aryan Resistance's cartoons of Blacks with exaggerated Negro features, and cartoonist Steve Benson's portrayals of gun owners with nuts for heads are dishonest and malevolent propaganda. The same goes for Barack Obama's use of children as human shields in his war against the Second Amendment.

(Benson, an Arizona Cardinals fan, also drew a cartoon of a stereotyped Pittsburgh Steelers fan, complete with pierogies and kielbasa for brain cells -- an apparent ethnic slur against Poles. Benson's derogatory stereotypes of gun owners, meanwhile, go against Linebarger's warning against demonizing the other side's rank and file. I recall a Benson cartoon of a drunk "NRA member" who was letting his child play with a loaded gun. Here is another that is almost libelous, because it accuses the NRA of being mass murderer Jared Lee Loughner's accomplice. If we show Benson's hate propaganda to gun owners who are "only" interested in hunting, skeet shooting, and so on, we can probably double the NRA's membership in a few years.)

Linebarger then defines the "Propaganda Man" as the composite person or target audience we want to persuade. This is not the enemy leader, whose dishonesty and lack of integrity is well known, and who will never submit to facts or rational arguments. These leaders include politicians like Dianne Feinstein (CA), Jerrold Nadler (NY), Charles Schumer (NY), Andrew Cuomo (NY), Bobby Rush (IL), and anybody else who will be reelected no matter what he or she does. Bobby Rush, for example, is a convicted criminal who belonged to the Black Panthers when it advocated the murder of police officers. His constituents nonetheless selected him over Barack Obama in a 2000 Congressional primary, and they are obviously not going to remove him for attacking the Second Amendment.

The destruction of the Million Mom March in 2000 proved, however, that it is possible to convince the other side's followers to walk away in disgust. Our target audience therefore consists of (1) people whom the enemy has deluded into swallowing their gun control snake oil and (2) constituents of Members of Congress whose tenure depends on the good will of swing voters. Examples of the latter include suburban and rural Democrats.

Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), who received an A rating from the National Rifle Association, served 13 terms in a region with a strong firearm tradition. He would probably still be in office if he had not supported ObamaCare. His successor Matt Cartwright has, however, expressed support for an "assault weapon" ban. We must therefore remind him that Northeast PA is not Philadelphia, Chicago, New York City, or Los Angeles: the main sources of opposition to the basic human right of self-defense. The voters in his district, and the surrounding ones, exemplify the target audience we must persuade. This persuasion can be very simple, honest, and straightforward.

The Right and Means of Self-Defense

It is not effective to argue that the Second Amendment allows ownership of any weapon whatsoever, even though this might have been the intention of the Founding Fathers. Our opponents argue that the Founding Fathers were talking about single-shot muskets, and we counter correctly that muskets were the colonial counterpart of the M-16; every army on earth used them. (The First Amendment similarly envisioned soap boxes in public parks, as opposed to the Internet.) These arguments persuade nobody who has not already chosen a side, and they are therefore a waste of time. "Because the Constitution says so" or "It's my right" will not convince anybody whom the enemy is deluging with images of dead children, while the Glorious Leader uses children as human shields to support his so-called reasoning. Our argument must instead be as compelling as the inarguable statement that two and two make four, and therefore impossible for any honest and rational person to contradict.

The first step is to challenge the other side with a very simple question: "Do you believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to defend themselves from violent attack?" Even people like Barack Obama, Andrew Cuomo, and Dianne Feinstein will not dare to answer in the negative. They will, however, demur that nobody needs an "assault weapon" to exercise this right. Cuomo said quite correctly that nobody needs ten bullets to kill a deer, but he knows full well that the Second Amendment is not about shooting deer. The question, and the other side must not be allowed to evade it or equivocate, is "How many bullets might a person reasonably need to stop one or more violent specimens of the most dangerous animal on earth?"

Police departments apparently believe the answer to be 13 to 17 rounds of 9 millimeter, as shown by their use of Glocks with these magazine capacities. A .45 caliber sidearm has far more stopping power, so seven rounds (the maximum now allowed by New York) may be adequate to end a life or death confrontation that somebody else starts. Most women, however, along with small men, find the 9 millimeter's lesser recoil far easier to handle. New York's Legislature and governor therefore seem to think that the right of effective self-defense should be reserved for healthy and fit men, as opposed to women and senior citizens.

When it comes to rifles, police departments believe the answer to be no less than 30 rounds of .223, as shown by their deployment of AR-15s. The only difference between a police officer and a private citizen is that the former has the authority and duty to intervene in situations that the ordinary citizen should, or even must, avoid. If either needs a firearm for any non-sporting purpose, though, he or she needs it for exactly the same reason. The definition of a weapon that is "reasonable" for legitimate self-defense is therefore, "Any weapon that is routinely available to law enforcement agencies."

I tried this on a talk show host who supports the proposed "assault weapon" ban, and he had no viable answer. Neither will anybody else against whom we deploy it in letters to the editor, talk radio, the Internet, and other media.

William A. Levinson, P.E. is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/the_argument_that_wins_the_assault_weapon_debate.html#ixzz2JtLCO86X
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
 
Yes, it is the US that CNBC is speaking about, but we have global warming in Canada if you believe the CBC and the usual subjects.

Global Warming Leads to Increasing Gun Murders in Chicago


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYkiNeul2Oc


 
Rifleman62 said:
Yes, it is the US that CNBC is speaking about, but we have global warming in Canada if you believe the CBC and the usual subjects.

Global Warming Leads to Increasing Gun Murders in Chicago


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYkiNeul2Oc

Total nonsense. Everyone knows it is Stephen Harper's fault.

:sarcasm:
 
Ex-SHAD said:
I really do believe that it's time that firearms owners and the firearms lobbies in Canada finally stand up, and tell the government that enough is enough, and that the Registry and Canada's restrictive and draconian firearms laws must go.

A Canada with open carry, and an entrenched right to bear and keep arms, is a safer Canada, whereas gun control simply gives the advantage to criminals, while punishing the law abiding.

The laws allowing concealed carry in Canada exist right now and anyone can apply...................
 
And if your name is Mom Boucher and the leader of a none criminal organization with a rather length "Sheet" of your own who thinks his personal safety is at risk from rivals, you Might rpt Might just get one. But only if your from Quebec and have "FRIENDS" apparently.

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Article4.htm

The original article is from The StarPheonix, Saskatoon.  The CBC or CTV also ran the story some time ago about how he had a concealed carry permit, one of only 30 some that had been issued in Canada.

Tends to indicate to me that those of us that play by the rules, do your level best to be Good Citizens and make the place just a little bit better today than it was yesterday are getting the short end of this politically correct stick.
 
End of days, indeed.

I thought I just saw "'Mom' Boucher" and "politically correct" in the same discussion.  Inconceivable  ;)
 
Colin P said:
The laws allowing concealed carry in Canada exist right now and anyone can apply...................

The criteria, however, excludes almost everyone and anyone...

PrairieThunder said:
More restrictions will not do any good, but neither will more freedom. More freedom will open the doors up to giving more people with Mental Illness or ill-character access to firearms and therefore an increase in gun deaths and injuries either by intent, or negligence. Canada's laws are not perfect, but they're good for us and have proven their effectiveness in the long term (especially with the screening they do these days, while some slip through, they do manage to do well).

There is nothing that proves any kind of effectiveness of our "screening process." There is certainly nothing that proves having the police monitor every time a law-abiding firearm owner wants to take his firearm to the range, or to a gunsmith, or where ever, does anything to prevent anything "bad" from happening.

I would be willing to bet my AR-15 that if they removed all the ATT, target shooter nonsense tomorrow, that there would be no noticeable change in any current trends related to crime, suicide, etc.

The only thing that stops a mentally ill person from accessing a firearm and harming himself or someone else is how it is stored.

And nothing really stops even a dumb criminal from getting his hands on a firearm.
 
Heres a point for people that say that Canada has high standards for screening people to get there PALs. For my application I used only two references (just kept repeating them as it doesn't say it needs to be new references). Those two references were my parents. Sure enough my PAL was granted.
If it is this easy to actually get a gun licence why bother with so much restrictions that are easy to break? Pinned mags at 5 or 10 rounds (depending on type of mag) is pointless. I can take a drill and easily remove the pin thereby making it a full functioning 30 round mag in just a couple seconds. If I am going to commit a crime do they really think I will follow there 5 round restriction.
ATT's are pointless once again, if I was to commit a crime would I really tell them where I intend to commit it. Personally I think the worst part about the gun laws are that any gun the government (or RCMP apparently) thinks should be a higher category than it deserves (eg. firearms that are based of the M16/AR15 or AK style actions, most 7.62x51 semi-autos) gets placed in them for no more reason than they feel it should be. Make criteria for firearms restrictions (barrel length, type of action, etc.) but don't place a firearm that should be non-restricted under there own guidelines in a restricted or prohibited category.
If people are going to commit crimes there going to do it period. Whether they have a gun or not makes no difference. Look at Britain they have a very high murder rate but they have a very low firearms ownership rate. They just use knives (or more recently extremely high powered tasers). Its time to stop prosecuting legal gun owners for stupid stuff (like accidentally leaving your ATT at home or putting a gun down on your table after shooting at people who are firebombing your house). The crime rate with firearms hasn't even dropped thanks to the fact people who own legal firearms tend not to commit crimes.
 
Old and Tired said:
And if your name is Mom Boucher and the leader of a none criminal organization with a rather length "Sheet" of your own who thinks his personal safety is at risk from rivals, you Might rpt Might just get one. But only if your from Quebec and have "FRIENDS" apparently.

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Article4.htm

The original article is from The StarPheonix, Saskatoon.  The CBC or CTV also ran the story some time ago about how he had a concealed carry permit, one of only 30 some that had been issued in Canada.

Tends to indicate to me that those of us that play by the rules, do your level best to be Good Citizens and make the place just a little bit better today than it was yesterday are getting the short end of this politically correct stick.

Hey, if this was a US based discussion it would put to rest the NRA arguments of late.  ;D

Spcifically the "It takes a god guy with a gun to defeat a bad guy with a gun" and the "We shouldn't bring in laws because criminals won't follow them".
 
In order to obtain your PAL you better have nothing but the most congenial relationships with your former common law or married partner. If you don't get their sign off you will be totally hooped. But we all know that Ex will be totally fair and forgiving right ..... ?


 
Colin P said:
The laws allowing concealed carry in Canada exist right now and anyone can apply...................

However, unlike in the United States whereby most states(with the exception of certain Blue States, however that's another point of debate entirely) will issue you a Concealed Carry License following taking the class(which most reputable gun stores will offer), unless you're a felon or a non-permanent resident, there's really no issue with getting your CCDW.

However, I almost guarantee that unless you make up either an individual who's under permanent protection from the RCMP, or a guard for a profession which firearms are routinely required, you'll get denied.

The problem is, that Canadians are made to jump through so many hoops to get their CCDW, that it's almost unheard of, and even after you're issued one, I almost guarantee that if you ever use your weapon in personal defense, that you'll get hammered by a judge.





 
Ex-SHAD said:
However, unlike in the United States whereby most states(with the exception of certain Blue States, however that's another point of debate entirely) will issue you a Concealed Carry License following taking the class(which most reputable gun stores will offer), unless you're a felon or a non-permanent resident, there's really no issue with getting your CCDW.

However, I almost guarantee that unless you make up either an individual who's under permanent protection from the RCMP, or a guard for a profession which firearms are routinely required, you'll get denied.

The problem is, that Canadians are made to jump through so many hoops to get their CCDW, that it's almost unheard of, and even after you're issued one, I almost guarantee that if you ever use your weapon in personal defense, that you'll get hammered by a judge.

Or have political connections....like Norm Gardiner.
 
Interesting comparison,which should make some people's heads explode. Inconvenient facts and all....

http://pjmedia.com/blog/im-glad-that-i-dont-have-canadian-murder-rates-where-i-live/?singlepage=true

I’m Glad That I Don’t Have Canadian Murder Rates Where I Live
Surprising results when comparing murder rates for specific Canadian provinces with their American neighbors.

by
Clayton E. Cramer

Bio
February 14, 2013 - 12:13 am

I recently prepared  for an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation concerning the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. I thought it would be worth my while to compare murder rates between the two countries, but also between adjoining divisions of those two countries. There was a time when Canadian murder rates were low enough compared to the U.S. for American gun-control advocates to argue in favor of Canadian style gun control for our country. This is no longer the case.

It is certainly true that for Canada as a whole, murder rates are still considerably lower than for the United States as a whole. For 2011, Canada had 1.73 homicides per 100,000 people; the United States had 4.8 murders and non-negligent homicides per 100,000 people.  What I find fascinating, however, is to look at murder rates for Canadian provinces and compare them to their immediate American state neighbors. When you do that, you discover some very curious differences that show gun availability must be either a very minor factor in determining murder rates, or if it is a major factor, it is overwhelmed by factors that are vastly more important.

For example, I live in Idaho.  In 2011, our murder rate was 2.3 per 100,000 people.  We have almost no gun-control laws here. You need a permit to carry concealed in cities, but nearly anyone who may legally own a firearm and is over 21 can get that permit.  We are subject to the federal background check on firearms, but otherwise there are no restrictions. Do you want a machine gun? And yes, I mean a real machine gun, not a semiautomatic AR-15. There is the federal paperwork required, but the state imposes no licensing of its own.  I have friends with completely legal full-automatic Thompson submachine guns.

Surely with such lax gun-control laws, our murder rate must be much higher than our Canadian counterparts’ rate. But this is not the case: I was surprised to find that not only Nunavut (21.01) and the Northwest Territories (6.87) in Canada had much higher murder rates then Idaho, but even Nova Scotia (2.33), Manitoba (4.24), Saskatchewan (3.59), and Alberta (2.88) had higher murder rates.  (Okay, Nova Scotia is just a teensy-weensy bit higher than Idaho for 2011.)

What about Minnesota? It had 1.4 murders per 100,000 in 2011, lower than not only all those prairie provinces, but even lower than Canada as a whole.  Montana had 2.8 murders per 100,000, still better than for Canadian provinces and one Canadian territory.  When you get to North Dakota, another one of these American states with far less gun control than Canada, the murder rate is 3.5 per 100,000, still lower than Manitoba, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut.  And let me emphasize that Minnesota, Montana, and North Dakota, like Idaho, are all shall-issue concealed-weapon permit states: nearly any adult without a felony conviction or a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction can obtain a concealed weapon permit with little or no effort.

At this point, you’re going to point out that there are many American states that have very high murder rates, especially in the South, and on the coasts. This is certainly true, but irrelevant to the question of whether gun-control laws reduce murder rates. If gun availability or a lack of restrictive gun-control laws was sufficient to explain any substantial part of murder rates, then these low restriction states should have higher murder rates than their Canadian neighbors, and yet if anything, the situation is the reverse: the Canadian provinces often have higher murder rate than their low gun-control American counterparts.

There are very real social problems that contribute to differences in murder rates. If gun availability is one of those contributors, it must be a very unimportant part of that contribution.  Perhaps those focused on gun control as a method of saving lives might be better off concentrating on the social problems that really matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top